Accountability Is Finally Moving Forward, And That’s Good News for Everyone

#GovernmentAccountability #FiscalResponsibility #PublicSpendingOversight #InstitutionalReform

By Lucian Seraphis Subscribe to my substack - https://substack.com/@lucianseraphis

Across the political spectrum, Americans share a familiar frustration: government grows larger, more complex, and more expensive, while accountability often feels optional. Waste is acknowledged. Inefficiency is documented. Oversight is promised. Yet meaningful reform has historically been slow.

That dynamic is beginning to change.

Not dramatically. Not without conflict. But in ways that matter — and in ways that explain why resistance to reform has become more visible.

Waste and Abuse: Real Problems, Real Limits

Large systems inevitably generate waste, inefficiency, and abuse. Federal oversight bodies have documented improper payments, weak grant controls, contract duplication, and emergency programs operating with relaxed safeguards for years.

Those problems are real.

At the same time, not every dollar criticized in public debate represents fraud. Authorized spending, wasteful design, administrative error, and criminal misuse are distinct categories. Conflating them weakens reform efforts rather than strengthening them.

Effective accountability depends on precision, not exaggeration.

Welfare Spending and the Danger of Rhetorical Math

Public debate has increasingly focused on large aggregate “welfare” numbers, sometimes illustrated with claims that dividing total spending among poor households would yield extraordinarily high per-family figures.

While such calculations may be arithmetically correct, they are not descriptive of reality. Most welfare spending consists of non-cash benefits and services, unevenly distributed based on eligibility, health status, and family composition.

The legitimate question is not whether the numbers are large — they are — but whether programs are well-designed, properly administered, and protected against recurring errors and abuse.

FEMA, Migrant Funding, and Oversight Clarity

Recent controversy over FEMA-administered funding illustrates why clarity matters. Federal programs did provide grants related to shelter and services during migrant surges, administered through specific authorities and appropriations.

Disagreement over the policy is reasonable. Claims that all such funding represented improper diversion of disaster relief funds are often inaccurate.

Separating policy judgment from oversight assessment strengthens accountability and avoids unnecessary polarization.

Immigration and Social Service Pressures

Large migrant inflows have placed real strain on state and local governments, particularly in housing, healthcare, and education. Those pressures are visible and measurable.

However, long-term growth in federal welfare spending is driven primarily by healthcare costs, demographics, and program structure — not by undocumented immigration alone.

Understanding where costs actually originate is essential for meaningful reform.

Stop-Gap Funding and Structural Avoidance

Repeated reliance on continuing resolutions reflects a deeper problem: a budgeting process that often avoids sustained scrutiny. Stop-gap bills preserve existing spending patterns while limiting opportunities for reform and evaluation.

This procedural reality explains much of the inertia that frustrates calls for smaller, more efficient government.

What Recent Oversight Has Shown

Recent scrutiny — including high-profile efficiency initiatives — reinforced two important truths:

First, fraud, waste, and abuse exist and deserve correction. Second, overstated or imprecise claims undermine credibility and distract from real problems.

Accountability improves when oversight is accurate, enforceable, and durable.

Why Resistance Is Increasing

Opposition to reform intensifies when changes become binding rather than advisory. Measures that limit discretion, impose automatic audits, introduce sunset clauses, or constrain emergency authority consistently generate resistance.

This response is structural, not conspiratorial. Systems resist constraint by nature.

Codification: The Critical Shift

The most consequential development is the effort to codify reforms into law. Executive actions can be reversed or ignored. Statutory requirements endure.

That is why Speaker Mike Johnson and House leadership’s emphasis on codification matters. Permanence transforms oversight into accountability.

Are Conditions Improving?

Accountability expectations are higher than they were. Scrutiny is more consistent. Some inefficiencies are being corrected. Efforts to institutionalize reform are underway.

At the same time, government has not yet meaningfully shrunk, and spending incentives remain powerful. Progress is real but incremental.

A Measured Conclusion

Reform rarely arrives as a single victory. It advances through pressure, persistence, and permanence.

Resistance is not evidence that accountability is failing. It is evidence that accountability is beginning to matter.

That alone marks meaningful progress.

We are getting closer to balanced reform